a possibly preposterous question. I am aware that you can designate a swap file or swap partition on your hard drive that linux uses as "memory". Suggested sizes for the swap file that I've seen range up to about 1024MB. Is there a limit to the swap file size that you can set?Basically I am running a perl script that processes a massive B) file (DNA sequence data), etc, and requires around 48 GB of memory to run, maybe a bit less. So, would it be possible to set a swap file to a massive, ridiculous size (~60GB oratever) and successfully run such a script on a desktop?Yes, I am aware that it would massively ow down the process. The thing is, if the perl script normally completes in about half an hour, and I can get it working on a desktop, I don't mind if it takes days or weeks to complete. I really don't. That's because it takes days or weeks to get access to a computer with the required grunt to do it.So, is this a stupid idea? Is it even possible? If so, given a perl script that normally completes in a half hour on a 48G system, if you do this, would it take days? weeks? decades
I have 2 directories in my home folder that I would like to set a size limit on. The directories are ~/backup and ~/temp. Is there an easy way to limit the size of a directory without having to make partitions?
I have a large file (deflated size: 602191947)that is not saved in my Ubuntu One account. On sync'ing the file is being uploaded, and eventually reaches 602191947 - and then nothing more happens to this file - but sync'ing the following files in the queue goes on with success. I have tried manual upload with the same result. The file is still being marked as 'uploading' even after several tries and log ins/log outs, and reboots. So I was just wondering whether there is a file size limit - can't seem to find information regarding this.
I've noticed that for files longer than about 8000 lines that gedit has problems opening the file. Was gedit not designed for long files or is there another problem? The same thing also happens on complicated html files. So I hope there is a way to fix this.
I was just testing specifying limit on file size to a user and have added the following to /etc/security/limits.conf bob soft fsize 100 This basically should have said not to allow bob to create anyfile greater than 100Kb in size.
But the interesting thing is, if bob already has any file which is greater than 100Kb in size, it even doesn't allow to log him into the system both from console and SSH. Also nothing is logged in logs.. How do I configure it so that, bob can login to the system even though he has any file greater than 100Kb (but doesn't allow him to create file which are greater than 100Kb) ??
Does Recordmydesktop have a file size limit? I'm considering using the Zero compression setting to keep CPU usage down, but I don't want to run up against a 2GB or 4GB file size limit. While I know some filesystems impose this limit, most screen recorders I've used have a 2GB or 4GB limit when recording, regardless of the filesystem.Is this an issue with Recordmydesktop
I have a self-made application running on a small embedded Linux device (which should not matter) using syslog to output some error, warning or debug logs.There is a "better" syslog daemon installed, called syslog-ng, which have some more features,t I miss a very important one:How to limit the size of the logfiles to some dedicated megabytes. I was able to create rotating logfiles with the configuration in syslog-ng.conf:
I'm trying to copy a 7.8GB tar.gz file to an external hard drive via command line. It gets to an even 4GB and stops, and gives an error that says "file size limit exceeded." I edited some file at /etc/security/limits.conf to look like: "root hard fsize 10024000" but that didn't do anything at all. Yes, I am copying this as root.
I downloaded pdftk 1.41 fromand installed on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 32 bitI am primarily using this utility to uncompress pdf files to remove the 'Flate' compressionIt works good with small pdfsHowever, when i use to uncompress pdf files of size 35MB or more, the uncompressed output file grows up to 2GB and then the uncompression fails with error:"File size limit exceeded"I can concatenate two files with output file size upto 3GB in size, so 2GB is not the limitation at the linux level
Last weekend i have increased the open file size (ulimit -n) for the application user id i have update the limits.conf file with necessary inputs restarted the service and the server as well, when i check the ulimit value for the specific user by switching user from other user it shows the new value (10240) but if i login directly using the application id the ulimit value shows as 1024 which one is the default one.
Wubi doesn't let me set the swap file size, so on installation it only creates a swap file of a few hundred megabytes. Because of this, i cannot hibernate my netbook (eeePC 1005HA), which has 2 GB of RAM.
Creating a 2 GB swap file alongside of the original one using the tutorial here did work, but hibernate doesn't seem to work with it. For this reason i thought increasing the original swap's size instead of creating more would be a way to solve my problem.
Is there some way to limit the download size of updates for ubuntu? At the moment, update manager shows that I have some 300 MB worth of downloads. I can't find any way to deselect many updates at once either.
I really don't understand what's happening.I make a 3.5tb RAID array in Disk Utility, yet it makes it so that one partition is 3tb and the other is 500 gigs free!Why is that? Ext4 can do huge partition sizes I thought.
I have a 1TB external hard drive. I would like to create in it 10 folders:
I would then like to permanently mount each folder to its machine (I have 10 machines connected through a switch, so each machine will have a folder that is mounted to ONE of the 10 folders in the external hard drive).
My questions: (1) Is this a good configuration? are there better ideas to give individual machines more space without replacing their hard drive? (2) How do I limit each one of the folders ('folder1', 'folder2', ...., 'folder10') to a size of 100 [GB]? I don't want one folder (say, 'folder1') to grow in size and 'steal' the space designated to the other folders.
We use VxVM and VxFS on HP-UX and Ie used them in the past on Solaris.ve found they are available as Storage Foundation v5.1 for 64 bit RHEL.(In fact there�s even a BASIC version for free on 2 processor systems). Previously wed run into a 2 TB limit for filesystems on the older versions we have on HP-UX. The data sheets at Symantec are pure marketing fluff. Does anyone know what the filesystem size limit is for 5.1 on Linux?
Why is it in Linux that there is a stack size set by default? And why is it so small? (My system is set to 8192 kbytes.) And why is there a default limit on the stack size when the max memory and virtual memory size are, by default, unlimited? (Aren't they both fed from the same place ultimately?)
Reason I ask: I want to use recursive functions in my programming a lot more. Problem is, if the language (or implementation) doesn't happen to support tail-call recursion, then I can be pretty well certain that the first huge problem that gets thrown at my function is going to kill my program because the stack size limit is going to be quickly reached. Obviously, I can change the stack size limit for my own computers, but it doesn't feel so great knowing that most of the people who copy and execute my code will have probably have overlooked this. Anyway, does anyone know: is this small default stack size limit just one of those historical artifacts, or is there some technical reason for it?
The website creates a RPG character through a traditional Wizard. It calls itself with a hidden variable being the page number and tests which page and returns the page data with the page incremented.
Each page should be treated as a seperate page and so would be unique. I am echoing the contents of POST to the top of the page and so I can see variables being returned. When I get data from an Ajax query from page three it saves the data (23 post fields of no more than 25 characters for each field). Page four does the same but with less fields - but it is NOT returning the data - only four fields being those that were originally posted.
I cut/paste the function from section three to section four and changed the displayed text and the names of variables to test so there are no code errors, since page three works and is saved to a database.
So the only option is that there is a PHP or Apache2 issue when POST variables are returned? I am completely out of ideas as to why this would even be an issue or how it could possibly appear.
Is the number of variables an issue? This page is less than the previous page.... And the form is POSTed...
PS: I am getting NOTICE errors from PHP being the POSTed variables that are not displayed/returned... I used:
error_reporting (E_ALL ^ E_NOTICE);
to stop these form being reported but do I need to test each one? PPS: Using If Isset($_POST['xxx']) does NOT allow that variable through...
PS: I have the default Ubuntu 10.04 Apache2 with all the ubuntu 10.04 updates...
RAM for older machines like I use is fairly cheap these days. But flash memory is just as cheap or cheaper. So I'd like to ask about the feasibility of expanding my system's memory using flash memory. And about whether creating a partition for swap on the flash memory, or whether a swap file on the flash device, is the better way to go.
By flash memory I have in mind mainly USB sticks or what are sometimes called "pen drives." But I do also have CF and SD cards that, with the proper cheap adapter (one of which I already own for adapting CF) could be used to create extra swap space. So, what is the current consensus on the feasibility/advisability of using flash memory for swap? I've read about the limited write cycles of flash being an argument against using it for swap. But recent reading indicates to me that the limited write cycles problem applies mostly to older, smaller-capacity flash memory. Some will come out and say that, for larger-capacity flash memory, the life of the device is likely to exceed the amount of time your current computer will be useful (I think I've seen estimates in the range of 3-4 years life--minimum--for newer, higher-capacity flash memory).
A more persuasive argument I've heard against using flash memory for swap is that access times for these devices can be much slower than SATA, and maybe even IDE, hard drives. That would certainly dictate against using flash memory for swap.
So, how about some input on this issue? Anyone using flash memory for swap? If so, what kind (e.g., usb stick or SD/CF)? Are you using a swap file or a swap partition? How's system performance? Likewise, has anyone had flash-memory-used-as-swap die on them? The consequences would undoubtedly be dire. Also, has anyone measured flash memory access times to confirm or refute claims about slow access times? Are some types of flash memory better/worse than others in terms of access times?
How do you put a limit in place for file caching in Suse 11.4?
My pc becomes usable on a regular basis with minimum cpu usage because I can't open new applications There are no error messages etc, the new apps just don't open.
free -m shows the vast majority of my memory is used by cache free -m total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3185 1048 2137 0 38 503 (this becomes max) -/+ buffers/cache: 506 2679 Swap: 2055 0 2055
I've done ... echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
Sometimes an app will open after this but the system becomes unstable, locking up regularly.
I not sure why the default max is 100% file cache but I'd to put a sane file cache limit in place, like 40% or something. I've put limits in place in the past using a percentage and I've poked arround but i don't see the setting.
Does anyone know of a way of limiting a print-job size from samba?
I know how to limit a print job size form cups, and how to require x amount of free space before accepting a job. I've even dug up how to require x amount of free space for samba to accept a print job, but I can't see how to limit samba to only certain sized jobs.
Someone tried to print a >1G file to my print-server this morning, causing me to have a less relaxed Monday than I had hoped. Because it ran out of space before spooling, it was never limited by cups. Because I had to get rid of it ASAP so people could get work done, I have no idea who's it was, or where it came from. Scouring logs didn't give me any good leads either.
I have been trying to increase the message_size_limit on my Debian 2.4.26 box with postfix 2.3.8. For example, I set message_size_limit and mailbox_size_limit to 104857600 (100m) and restart postfix. Running postconf -n confirms that it has changed. However when I send a test message it kicks it back saying the message size limit is 16777216 (16m, which is, incidentally, the default value of the berkeley_db_create_buffer_size parameter)
using kubuntu 9.04 on AMD 64,working with ISPconfig panel.I have postfix configured and have no problem getting mails with small attachments, but when they pass certain size I don't get them.Where can I configure this?
I m using squid 2.7 Stable 9 and Dansguardian 126.96.36.199, i have compiled both squid and dansguardian, i have enabled follow_x_forwarded_for in squid to make clients IPs visible to squid, i have also set x_forwarded_for=on in dansguardian, this is working fine and clients ips are visible to squid. Now i want to set down-loadable file size limit upto 50 MB in squid by using the acl reply_body_max_size 52428800 allow mynetwork for every user except few users the above acl is not working properly. mynetwork is our private network which is 192.168.0.0/16.
When i set the acl reply_body_max_size 52428800 allow localhost . it works fine but only for localhost. I want to allow upto 50 MB down-loadable file size to every user in my network except a few users whom will have access upto 500 MB down-loadable file size.